Article Analysis of Torie Deghett's The War Photo No One Would Publish

The first Gulf War, otherwise known as Operation Desert Storm or the “video-game war,” is generally regarded by the public as a relatively mild, “bloodless” war, especially when compared to notoriously gruesome wars such as the Vietnam War (DeGhett 74-75).  In her article titled “The War Photo No One Would Publish,” Torie Rose DeGhett emphasizes the sheer brutality that took place during the first Gulf War, clearing up many misconceptions that downplay the morbidity of the war.  In addition, DeGhett offers social commentary critiquing the actions of the American media during the reporting of Operation Desert Storm, claiming that the media wrongly censored information from the public and gave people a false image of both the events that occurred on the battlefield and the war as a whole.  Throughout her article, DeGhett brings up many points that support the ideas that Operation Desert Storm was, in fact, not a bloodless war and that the media did the public a disservice by covering up information about the first Gulf War.  American citizens should have known about the more grotesque details of the war from the start, since “if we’re big enough to fight a war, we should be big enough to look at it” (DeGhett 82).

Early in the article, DeGhett explains how the use of terminology such as “surgical strikes” helped citizens accept and support the first Gulf War by making it easier to picture what was happening on the battlefield in a less violent and less grisly manner (DeGhett 74).  The strategic use of “bloodless language,” coupled with the fact that images of the first Gulf War, many of which are comparable to the shocking images taken in Vietnam, were never published presented the war in a misleading way, ultimately contributing to a misinformed nation (DeGhett 74).  Throughout “The War Photo No One Would Publish,” DeGhett avoids such terminology and adopts a darker tone when describing what happened in the war in order to present the war from a more accurate point of view.  DeGhett’s word choice and diction help paint a picture of how gruesome the first Gulf War really was.  For example, DeGhett describes the pictures Lee Corkran took during his stay in Qatar with phrases such as “bombs hang off the jets’ wings, their sharp edged darkness contrasting with the soft colors of the clouds and desert below” (DeGhett 76).  This description (specifically describing the planes’ “sharp edged darkness” that contrasts with the “soft colors of the clouds and desert below”) portrays the bombers in an ominous light, possibly referring towards the fact that the planes are used for destruction.  Additionally, she emphasizes the extreme conditions Corkran had to endure while taking pictures by mentioning how, had Corkran ejected from the plane he was in, “his equipment could have snapped his neck” (DeGhett 76).  Had DeGhett decided to use other phraseology similar to “kinetic warfare” or “surgical strikes,” her descriptions of the war would make it appear more acceptable than it really was and would ultimately be misrepresentative of the first Gulf War.

One of DeGhett’s goals in writing this article was to put the reader in a war photographer’s shoes in order to communicate to the reader just how gruesome the battlefield can be.  To accomplish this goal, DeGhett includes multiple anecdotes throughout “The War Photo No One Would Publish,” including Kenneth Jarecke’s anecdotes about how he spent two weeks doing nothing on the Saudi-Iraqi border because he “lacked access to the action” and about when he opened a copy of the Observer to find his photograph inside (DeGhett 76).  Most notably, though, is Jarecke’s recollection of the burnt Iraqi convoys and soldiers.  Jarecke describes the heartbreaking scene of an incinerated man “fighting to save his life to the very end, till he was completely burned up” and how that image is “seared into [his] memory… as if it happened yesterday” (DeGhett 78).  DeGhett’s use of anecdotes not only provides a dose of reality to the reader by conveying how horrible the first Gulf War was, but also gives the reader an inside look into the minds of those who experienced the first Gulf War firsthand and allows one to see how the photographers were affected by the war.  The mental and emotional consequences war has on those on the battlefield is something that is often overlooked by many when considering the atrocity of war, yet DeGhett emphasizes it.  DeGhett reminds the reader that death toll is not the only factor in considering how gruesome a war is, and that emotional scarring resulting from war is something that should not be discounted.  DeGhett also uses anecdotes to give the reader a better understanding of the thought processes of magazine editors and the sheer injustice that took place when Jarecke’s photos were submitted to the American media.  When reporting on the first Gulf War, the American media chose to use a more acceptable narrative which proved popular with the public.  Including pictures such as Jarecke’s and more accurate descriptions of events during the war would oppose this narrative, so the American media decided to omit them in their newspapers and magazines.  The exclusion of these elements led to somewhat of a voluntary censorship of the war by the media, ultimately resulting in the misrepresentation of the events that occurred during the war.  Years later, many editors developed a guilty conscience over the decisions that they made when reporting on Operation Desert Storm.  During an interview with DeGhett, Stella Kramer, an editor for Life magazine during the first Gulf War, recalls that “the decision to not publish Jarecke’s photo was less about protecting readers than preserving the dominant narrative of the good, clean war” (DeGhett 81).  Kramer regrets not exposing the American public to the more obscene events of the first Gulf War, stating that the issues published around the time of Operation Desert Storm “are all basically just propaganda” (DeGhett 81).  The fact that some editors recognize that they did the public a disservice by covering up certain elements of the war shows how even the editors believe that important information regarding the brutality of the war should have been revealed to the American people.  Had the war been reported on in a more accurate way, perhaps many of the mistaken beliefs about the war DeGhett debunks would not have formed in the first place.

Perhaps the most powerful elements of “The War Photo No One Would Publish” are the photographs that are included in the article along with the imagery used to describe said photos.  The most gruesome picture, nicknamed “Crispy,” consists of the burnt corpse of an Iraqi soldier attempting to escape a burning truck.  This photo especially emphasizes how appalling the first Gulf War really was. DeGhett not only describes this photo using morbid, shocking imagery, but also reiterates how awful the material in the picture is by putting the reader in the situation which resulted in the photograph, where “the Iraqi soldier died attempting to pull himself up over the dashboard of his truck.  The flames engulfed his vehicle and incinerated his body, turning him to dusty ash and blackened bone” (DeGhett 74).  While DeGhett’s use of imagery effectively shows the gruesomeness of the photo, no description can truly compare to looking at the photo itself.  The inclusion of photos taken during the first Gulf War allows the reader to see what really happened on the battlefield without any filter or censorship from the media.  While other rhetorical devices DeGhett uses, along with the article as a whole, might be effective in convincing one that the first Gulf War was not a bloodless, clean war, actually seeing the damage, death and destruction that took place through pictures provides undeniable evidence that the first Gulf War was, in fact, a gruesome war.  Additionally, the description of a charred corpse as a man fighting for his life, frozen in time at the moment of his death is horrendous, but seeing the grimace fixed on the corpse’s face in “Crispy” not only gives one a more accurate depiction of the scene, but also gives corpse somewhat of an identity; the corpse appears more human in the picture than it does in DeGhett’s description, reinforcing the idea that those who died during the first Gulf War were people with families, friends, worries, and dreams of their own rather than just a number in a death toll statistic.  This sense of humanity isn’t evident to people unless they actually see the pictures taken at the scene.  Therefore, American citizens would never have been able to realize how brutal the war truly was due to the omission of these photos, once more showcasing the injustice committed by the American media.  Had the photos been included in reports on the first Gulf War, the public would have rightfully known the truth about this atrocious war.

Throughout “The War Photo No One Would Publish,” Torie Rose DeGhett uses a multitude of rhetorical devices in order to expose the atrocities that were committed during Operation Desert Storm and support her argument that the media did the public a disservice by exchanging important, accurate information for a more tasteful account of the war.  Through the use of diction, anecdotes, and imagery, DeGhett takes the common misconception that the first Gulf War was a “good, clean war” and throws it out the window by showing the reader how awful the war really was (DeGhett 81).